Re: LGBTAitp 27: Of Shoes, and Ships, and Sealing Wax

Originally Posted by Rawhide

It's definitely not a harmless joke, nor is it a "victimless crime", it affects the server (especially on popular threads such as this one). The rule is there for multiple reasons, not just the flood the server gets at the creation of a new thread due to people who want to get in the first few posts, or the fact that contentless posts (e.g. consisting only of things listed below or things such as "+1") are prohibited in general.

We have asked people to not post things along the lines of "first post/page!", "new thread!", "*boogies*", etc. at the creation of a new thread. In cases where people reference the first post/page, the entire post is deleted, regardless of other content. The mention of the other things is somewhat tolerated, though frowned upon and not really appreciated, as long as there wasn't a rush to be amongst the first and the post contains actual content.

If you see it happening, then please report it.

Note, of course, that not all one or minimal word replies are contentless. I myself am a fan of putting a lot of meaning into a small reply. And, sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words. An example of this is where I have used a picture of a Facebook thumbs up to mean "Wow, congratulations! That is amazing news!"

Ah, you misunderstand. I personally do not think it is a victimless crime, I just think, from experience, very few people are ]aware they are beraking the rules, and when told such they cannot rationalise it in light of what the rest of the rules are (which read "if we suspect you of being a dingus we will crack down hard").

Also, wow. I just got Qaera's old username, given the information that they posted predominantly in pictures for a whiel.

Originally Posted by Heliomance

What I do?

Jokingly, your life is everything thus far I would like mine to be. Pole dancing, parkour, being able to dress up pretty, etc.
I thought I expolained that, but as I was osting due to insomnia... Well, there have ben some egregious typos on my part, including forgetting entire sentences. Sorry to worry you, friend

Originally Posted by Heliomance

I have no idea what my odds of being caught are, that's what I'm so nervous about. I'm going to attempt to go as a girl, but I have no idea if I'll be read or not - I suspect I probably will, because I'd be very surprised if I pass well enough to withstand more than a casual glance. I just hope it won't be an issue :/

I would say your odds of getting "caught" would be pretty low.... Going from your pictures, I wouldn't be surprised to find out you had a twin sister. Inertia is on your side. If you show up en femme, then tha's the first impression you'll give and that is what folks will cleave to.

Originally Posted by Lord Raziere

Bah, thats all impure. The only true study is an Infinity-Blind study! Even the scientist doesn't know that its a test.

We call that life, and it's not really science yet, because we lack the ability to analyze the data, or even access it.

I am fully convinced Life: the board game was an early attempt at distilling the formula to a workable method.

Originally Posted by Coidzor

I thought the general consensus was that our sexuality was innate. Where else could it come from but from ourselves?

mm. I may be misunderstanding you, but isn't that like saying your bones are innate because your body grows them - and then ignoring that your environment plays a huge part in how they form?

The question isn't about whether your sexualkity is part of you, it is about whether it would be the same in a vacuum as it is hen amongst people, in society.

I lean towards more innate, mesel'. But I can't really be sure, as I knew more about the details of the acts at age 2, than most of my fellws did by the time high school sexual education rolled around. It's entirely posible I picked it up through osmosis.

suspicion that emphasizing the possibility of them receiving a placebo would increase their paranoia that they were one of the ones getting a placebo and muck with the results, though, I must admit, I'm not very familiar with what information is released to people as they're entering into such studies.

There have been sitcom and drama episodes about this, actually. Usually involving breaking in to the scientist's computer and finding who is in which group and then switching pills around and ruining the scientific process. So long as the scientist doesn't mention it a lot, I don't think it's a real problem. People know that most of cofee getting rid of their caffeine headache is a placebo effect, but still need the coffee, after all.

And before anyone asks, most people will perk up when they know th ecoffee is being brewed, before ingestion. That's why I say that.

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

Regarding nature-vs.-nurture: I'm leaning heavily towards the all-or-at-least-mostly-nature side. I'm between a 5.5 and a 6 on the Kinsey scale, have known as far back as I can remember, and was in a conservative religious environment that was not at all conducive to or supportive of being gay; if something somehow accidentally managed to turn me gay despite all that, I'd be very impressed.

I don't know. I think aneutral environment is actually the least likely to foster nurture-based changes. Consider that a religious community that puts a lot of emphasis on homosexuality is still putting a lot of emphasis on homosexuality, even if it is negative.

The only parallels I have are racist, but; As a kid, when I met my first black person, I was curious. I wondered why their skin was darker, why his palms were still light, and that was it. Took me another ten years to figure out the differences were more than utterly superficial (genetic, different effects from some medication, different hair- and skin-care procedures). On the other end, I had friends who had racist parents, and they were really really aware that "black people are different". That stands to reason, right?

Except I also had friends who had parents that were all about breaking down inequality and such, and those friends were still aware that "black people were different". They just weren't allowed to bring up or act on those differences.

Anecdotally, being informed that there is such a thing as Gay, and that you should have an opinion on it, whathver that opinion is "suppposed" to be, will focus on that Gay ness.

Originally Posted by KenderWizard

Social pole-dancing etc

Spoiler

Show

I will also just use the first bit!
Re: poledancing: I said there's nothing inherently problematic about it, it's the stripper connotations. Again, you can't just say it doesn't have them. Maybe we're having the cultural divide again, but when it's "pole-dancing" as opposed to "gymnastics" or "acrobatics" or "break-dancing" that happen to include poles, that's what people are talking about, at least here. Also, everyone has been supporting Helio's new hobby, all that happened was I said it wasn't for me, and then, foolishly, elaborated.

That is true, and I didn't mean to say the connotations weren't there. I meant they aren't as strong as they could be, and that ... Actually, i can't remember the rest of my point. Ah well.

Tea?

Going mad, people. The most annoying part is, I can't go to my therapist unless I register at college, and I can't register unless I get funding, so I can't see my therapist during this stressful period waiting for funding.

Yick. If you register with your therapist, could you get back-pay? Or whatever oit is called? I know when I got insurance, they were able to take care of expenditures as far back as three months, because the process could take a while and they want you to be able to get treatment.

[quote+"Nope"]What does it say about me that I read the "****" as "butt"?
[/quote]